Bitch Media - sexual fluidityhttp://bitchmagazine.org/taxonomy/term/2349/0
enVisi(bi)lity: Post-Bi? What Skins Can Teach Us About Labelshttp://bitchmagazine.org/post/visibility-post-bi-what-skins-can-teach-us-about-labels-feminism-television
<p><a href="/post/visibility-cynthia-nixon-and-the-politics-of-labels-bisexuality-feminism" target="_blank">Throughout this series</a>, <a href="/post/visibility-jack-harkness-doctor-who-torchwood-feminism-sexuality" target="_blank">we've talked a lot about labels</a>. Identifying as gay or straight can be complicated enough; for those of us somewhere in the middle, it gets even trickier. Discussions over "bi" versus "queer" versus "pansexual" versus "fluid" get very complicated, very quickly. It makes me wonder: why are we so hung up on labels? Do we even need labels anymore? Spectra, one of my colleagues from <a href="http://genderacrossborders.com/" target="_blank">Gender Across Borders</a>, addressed this recently <a href="http://www.spectraspeaks.com/2012/03/a-word-to-the-wise-on-the-culture-of-naming-and-divisive-labels/" target="_blank">on her personal blog</a>:</p>
<blockquote><p>As with many other solidarity labels—women of color, black, feminist etc.—I support using common labels to reveal ourselves to others who have shared experiences and perspectives; but my primary identity isn't pivoted around any of these and I wouldn't take it too well if someone were to tell me that I have problems, or need to be "educated" because I choose to identify (or not identify) the way I do.</p></blockquote>
<p><a href="/post/visibility-cynthia-nixon-and-the-politics-of-labels-bisexuality-feminism" target="_blank"><img style="float: left; margin: 10px;" src="http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6057/7025704813_29ce5e5095.jpg" alt="A group of nine teenagers lay on top of each other in a messy pile. They wear brightly colored clothes, except for one blonde boy toward the bottom right, who is shirtless. They are in front of a rippled silver backdrop." height="260" width="251" /></a>I like Spectra's philosophy. I have particular labels that I use in reference to my own identity, and I like being able to use language to express otherwise intangible facets of my identity. There's nothing wrong with that. I also like using labels in the way that Spectra describes—as a way of finding other people who may have similar life experiences or beliefs. There's nothing wrong with that, either. The problems start when labels limit self-expression, rather than foster it. And, unfortunately, labels have become far more limiting than expressive. Especially among young people today, traditional labels are no longer cutting it. There are certainly examples reflecting this reality all over the media, but where I've noticed it most is in the UK version of <em>Skins</em>.</p>
<p>I started watching <em>Skins</em> recently, and I am blown away by the show's liberal approach to sexuality. It's a show in which teenagers have lots of sex, and while it's not always as sex-positive as I had hoped (one episode I watched, involving a girl engaging in casual sex to get over a break-up, featured a disturbing amount of slut-shaming dialogue), it does have a very flexible and progressive outlook on sexuality and, <a href="http://jezebel.com/5782312/meet-franky-skinss-genderqueer-character" target="_blank">at least since Franky's been on the show</a>, gender. Non-monosexuality is fairly commonplace in the <em>Skins</em> universe, and it is rarely labeled as anything at all, let alone "bisexual." In seasons one and two, a young man named Tony predominantly dates and sleeps with women, but he also enjoys experimenting with men; at one point, a manifestation of his subconscious refers to him as "a little fucked up jumble of misdirected, immature polysexuality" (though he never directly claims the label "polysexual" himself). Season two also features Cassie, a girl primarily involved with men, experimenting with women and, in her words, "discover[ing] the power of the pussy." She does not, however, claim any specific label to express her sexuality. And then there's Franky, introduced in season five, who is genderqueer and <a href="http://www.autostraddle.com/franky-likes-people-a-pansexual-ending-to-a-very-queer-week-80412/" target="_blank">explains that her sexuality is "into people."</a> I have some issues with <em>Skins</em>, but I really like these characters and the fact that the show approaches sexuality from this perspective. Because, the fact is, the identities expressed by characters like Tony, Cassie, and Franky are probably much better reflections of teen sexuality today than conventional straight and gay characters are.</p>
<p><img style="float: right; margin: 10px;" src="http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6233/7025704771_5b2cc94426.jpg" alt="An adolescent girl with cropped curly hair looks downward. She is wearing a white tank top, and the shot is very tight on her face and upper torso. To the right of the frame is a wall with black decorative wallpaper. The camera is at an angle, so the white ceiling is also visible." height="175" width="314" />So does <em>Skins</em>' approach indicate that we're moving past a need for labels—or, at least, traditional labels like straight, gay, and bisexual? Well...not necessarily. At the start of this series, <a href="/post/visibility-deconstructing-images-of-bisexuality-in-the-media-feminism-sexuality#comment-57298" target="_blank">a commenter asked me why I choose to call myself "bisexual" rather than "pansexual."</a> The reason isn't because I'm only attracted to two genders, because I'm not. It's also not because I think "bisexual" is a perfect label, because I don't. For a while, I preferred to use "queer," but I started to phase that out and transition to using "bisexual" when I realized that the concept of "queer" can be confusing for a lot of folks. Initially, I liked "queer" specifically for its vagueness, but when I became more invested in finding a word that would convey a consistent meaning when people heard it, the label became more challenging. So I went with "bisexual," since as of now, it is the most commonly understood expression of non-monosexuality (to the degree that non-monosexuality is commonly understood, of course). And while this may not be important to everyone, it is important to me to use language that easily places myself in the context of a broader movement. Politically, I believe it's critical to represent non-monosexuality in the LGBT movement. Because we exist, and there are lots of us. Among the self-identified LGB population, <a href="http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/study-shows-how-many-americans-are-gay-lesbian-bisexual-transgender/news/2011/04/07/18551" target="_blank">more than 50% identify as bisexual</a>. And that's before factoring in non-monosexual folks who don't identify as bisexual. Looking at the names and priorities of most LGBT organizations, you wouldn't realize that bi people make up such a huge percentage of the community. Until that's recognized, I find it important to speak out about non-monosexuality, using the language of bisexuality.</p>
<p>All that said, it's very easy to get caught up in labels. Labels shouldn't be the ultimate point. When they communicate a concept well, they can be useful, but we shouldn't rely on them so heavily that we miss the indescribable subtleties and nuances of sexuality. We also shouldn't rely on them to the point of prescriptivism, which silences labels and identities that others may choose. The identities articulated on <em>Skins</em> indicate the direction I believe society is heading in—a place where people are less concerned with what they call themselves and more concerned with who they love and what they enjoy. And that's the most important thing, anyway.</p>
<p>So are we post-bi? No. I don't think we're post-anything, honestly. Earlier this week, I heard someone use the term "post-feminist," and it made my skin crawl. As long as oppression exists, we aren't post-anything. And biphobia is alive and well, so, no, we aren't post-bi. But maybe someday we will be. I'm okay with that. I'm not married to this label. And <em>Skins</em> shows us that none of us ever have to be.</p>
<p><strong>Related:</strong> <a href="http://www.autostraddle.com/franky-likes-people-a-pansexual-ending-to-a-very-queer-week-80412/" target="_blank">Franky Likes People: Skins UK Episode 507 is a Pansexual Ending to a Very Queer Week of TV </a></p>
<p><strong>Previously:</strong> <a href="/post/visibility-a-tale-of-two-alexes-bi-coming-of-age-narratives" target="_blank">A Tale of Two Alexes: Bi Coming-of-Age Narratives</a>, <a href="/post/visibility-bisexuality-as-rebellion-sexualizing-women%E2%80%99s-friendships-feminism-sexuality" target="_blank">Bisexuality as Rebellion: Sexualizing Women's Friendships</a></p>
http://bitchmagazine.org/post/visibility-post-bi-what-skins-can-teach-us-about-labels-feminism-television#commentsbisexualbisexual visibilitybisexualitygenderqueeridentity politicslabelspansexualitypolysexualqueersexual fluiditySkinsVisi(bi)litySex and SexualityThu, 29 Mar 2012 18:48:24 +0000Carrie Nelson16048 at http://bitchmagazine.orgVisi(bi)lity: Bisexuality as Rebellion: Sexualizing Women’s Friendshipshttp://bitchmagazine.org/post/visibility-bisexuality-as-rebellion-sexualizing-women%E2%80%99s-friendships-feminism-sexuality
<p><a href="/post/visibility-humpday-not-your-average-bromance#comments" target="_blank">In the comments of my bromance post last week</a>, a couple of people mentioned that bisexuality tends to be a more accepted trait in women than in men. I agree with this perception. I don't agree with a theory I've heard elsewhere—that women are more inherently sexually fluid than men—but because bisexuality in women is often seen as more attractive and less threatening to the hegemonic male gaze than bisexuality in men, I do believe that women are more likely than men to openly express sexual and/or romantic feelings about other women. Even among straight-identified women I know, it's socially acceptable and downright commonplace for women to articulate feelings of attraction toward other women. Perhaps due to the titillating nature of sexually fluid women, stories about intimate friendships between women are regularly found in media.</p>
<p>I have noticed that often such stories use sexual fluidity among young women to signify rebellion against hegemonic institutions. In stories ostensibly about conflict between women and their families and women and male lovers, hints of bisexuality are present as indications of the larger ways in which the women in question are opposing oppression.</p>
<p><img style="float: left; margin: 10px;" src="http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7188/6874546074_3344bd5e42_o.jpg" alt="Two girls wearing pastel-colored dresses stand on grass, holding hands. Behind them are trees. They look straight ahead, focused." width="357" height="183" />The example that immediately comes to mind for me is <em>Heavenly Creatures</em>, based on the true story of Pauline Parker and Juliet Hulme. Pauline and Juliet are social outcasts who become extremely close friends and decide to create their own artistic fantasy world, where they make all the rules. I've heard it suggested that they are supposed to be lesbians (as depicted in the film; <a href="http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&amp;objectid=10371147" target="_blank">the real life Juliet has denied that she and Pauline were lovers</a>), but they are also depicted as having relations with and attractions to men, so I think "bisexual" is a more apt description. Their intimate friendship and the world they create are intended to be tools to escape from (and rebel against) their oppressive school system, chronic illnesses that afflict them, and families who control their behavior and identities. Pauline and Juliet may genuinely feel romantic love toward each other, but the way it comes across on screen makes it seem as though this love develops as a defense mechanism when their friendship and fantasy world are threatened by external sources. (I won't spoil the end of the movie, because if you haven't seen it, you really should. It's definitely Peter Jackson's best. Sorry, <em>Lord of the Rings </em>fans, but it's true.)</p>
<p><img style="float: right; margin: 10px;" src="http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7132/6874546126_ff299128a4_o.jpg" alt="A girl with blonde hair, wearing jeans and a tank top, stands next to a bed and stares at a brunette girl, wearing a jersey, sitting on the bed. The lighting is ominous." width="342" height="210" />Moving on, from a movie I love to one I, frankly, don't particularly like: let's talk about <a href="/post/jennifers-body-is-it-feminist-you-make-the-call" target="_blank"><em>Jennifer's Body</em></a>. To be fair, the film has some interesting elements. It's basically a hipster satire of the 1980s rape-revenge genre, <a href="/post/jennifers-body-a-real-wettie-killer"target="_blank">a decent concept that suffered from poor execution</a>. The film tells the story of Jennifer (<a href="http://www.afterellen.com/blog/dorothysnarker/why-wont-megan-fox-date-bisexual-women-exactly" target="_blank">played by openly bisexual Megan Fox</a>), a beautiful, popular teenage girl who is murdered and then returns to life as a succubus, seeking revenge on men who have wronged her. But Jennifer's demonic transformation isn't the core of the film—her relationship with her best friend Needy is. And even though Jennifer and Needy both date and sleep with men throughout the course of the film, <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L30MSf0bbpw" target="_blank">the sexual tension between the two of them is palpable</a>. Whether Needy identifies as queer is ambiguous, but Jennifer admits to "go[ing] both ways," implying a degree of bisexuality. Jennifer's bisexuality, which appears to make Needy simultaneously anxious and aroused, may in fact be a side-effect of her supernatural possession. It's presented as one of the ways in which she's able to counter the hegemonic straight masculinity she is intent on dismantling at school, and incorporating her best friend into this rebellion, while perhaps based on innate attraction, seems to be one strategy in a larger battle.</p>
<p>These are just two examples, but it's a phenomenon I've noticed often, and one that significantly differs from the way in which bromances are depicted. While the intimacy between men presented in <em>Superbad</em> and <em>Humpday</em> is incredibly personal, only discussed behind closed doors, the intimacy between women presented in <em>Heavenly Creatures</em> and <em>Jennifer's Body</em> is much more overt and conscious of its greater significance. Since sexual fluidity is typically seen as more acceptable in women than in men, it makes sense that the intimacy in women's friendships is able to be so much more direct than the sort of intimacy between men in bromances.</p>
<p>What other differences have you noticed between the ways in which intimate friendships between women and intimate friendships between men are depicted in media?</p>
<p><strong>Previously:</strong> <a href="/post/visibility-jack-harkness-doctor-who-torchwood-feminism-sexuality" target="_blank">"A 51st Century Guy": A Few Words on Jack Harkness</a>, <a href="/post/visibility-humpday-not-your-average-bromance" target="_blank">Isn't It Bromantic?</a></p>
http://bitchmagazine.org/post/visibility-bisexuality-as-rebellion-sexualizing-women%E2%80%99s-friendships-feminism-sexuality#commentsbisexualbisexual visibilitybisexualityfemale friendshipfilmHeavenly CreaturesJennifer's Bodysexual fluidityVisi(bi)litySex and SexualityTue, 27 Mar 2012 16:53:52 +0000Carrie Nelson16015 at http://bitchmagazine.orgVisi(bi)lity: Isn't it Bromantic?http://bitchmagazine.org/post/visibility-humpday-not-your-average-bromance
<p><strong>(Note: This post contains spoilers about the movie <em>Humpday</em>.) </strong></p>
<p><img style="float: right; margin: 10px;" src="http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7223/7001901903_48dd4a770f_o.jpg" alt=""Humpday" movie posted. Two shirtless men wearing blue boxers face each other, arms folded. They stand in front of a pink background." height="275" width="185" />What's the line between friendship and romance? This is a big question that we'll address throughout this series, but today, I want to explore it in the context of heterosexual male friendships. Specifically, I want to explore it in the context of the 21st century's offshoot of the buddy comedy—<a href="/post/isnt-he-lovely-male-bisexuality-doesnt-existoh-wait-it-does" target="_blank">the "bromance."</a></p>
<p>Now, I do enjoy some Judd Apatow movies (let's not forget, he produced the beloved <em><a href="/post/bridesmaids-revisited"target="_blank">Bridesmaids</a></em>), but the subgenre he's popularized can be rather frustrating. What irks me about bromance films, <a href="/post/douchebag-decree-bromance" target="_blank">besides the ridiculous name</a>, is the fact that these films not only presume Kinsey 0 heterosexuality, but they go so far as to reject even the suggestion of anything other than Kinsey 0 heterosexuality. (Or, <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/jul/15/bromance-gay-film-humpday-bruno" target="_blank">as Sady Doyle puts it</a>, "It's okay, Apatow movies tell their intended audience of straight men: you can love your bros, and think that they're the most important people in the world, and still think that Coldplay is for faggots.") In principle, that's okay, because there's nothing wrong with close, completely platonic male friendships. The reality, though, is that a lot of people who identify as straight have been attracted to people of the same gender at one point or another. Intimacy, whether it's between friends or lovers, is complicated. Sometimes, straight-identified men have moments of attraction toward other men—particularly men that they care about, like close friends. By building off of the word "romance," the genre is already implying a degree of intimacy that can, in some situations, be perceived and understood as romantic, and I wish bromance films were comfortable exploring that reality within their narratives.</p>
<p>Take<em> Superbad</em>, a film that I love. <em>Superbad</em> depicts the friendship of Seth and Evan, teenage boys preparing to graduate from high school, lose their virginities, and start college. There's a scene toward the end of the film when Seth and Evan are having a sleepover, and they drunkenly tell each other how much they love each other. It's a very touching scene, and in its way, it's an important one—it demonstrates the fact that, yes, it is okay for men to have friends that they love. But that honesty and emotion is undercut by the jokey nature of the scene. It's clearly played for laughs, and that bothers me. Why can't men who love women admit that they also love each other? Is it because they're afraid of what that love might signify?</p>
<p>I like to think of <em>Humpday</em>, an indie comedy Lynn Shelton wrote and directed back in 2009, as the story of what might happen to Seth and Evan ten years after <em>Superbad</em>. <em>Humpday</em> tells the story of Ben and Andrew, old friends who used to be extremely close but have drifted apart, as friends sometimes do. They reunite when Andrew, who lives a vagabond lifestyle, shows up at Ben's house unannounced, asking to stay over until he figures out where life is leading him next. Andrew teases Ben for his traditional lifestyle, which includes a stable job, a beautiful house, and a great wife. Ben's convinced that none of these conventions make him boring or square, but Andrew disagrees. In an attempt to prove to each other (and themselves) how cool and not square they both are, Andrew and Ben decide to enter an alternative porn festival and make a gay porn movie together. It's just for fun, they tell each other. They're close friends and they're both straight, so what could possibly go wrong?</p>
<p>The difference between <em>Humpday</em> and movies in the bromance subgenre, like <em>Superbad</em>, is that bromances tell the stories of platonic male friendships that deny the possibility of genuine romance and attraction. What <em>Humpday</em> does differently is turn that concept on its head and ask some hard questions: At what point does platonic love transition into something more? If we're so positive that we're only attracted to one gender, what's the harm in showing affection to someone who isn't that gender? Is it because we're afraid of what we might discover about ourselves in the process? Are we afraid we might actually like it, in a not-so-platonic way? And if we do, what does that mean?</p>
<p><img style="float: left; margin: 10px;" src="http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7261/6855786758_51cdd84f9d_o.jpg" alt="Two men sit in bed together, facing each other. They are naked and pillows cover most of their bodies. Lamps are lit on either side of them." height="208" width="338" />If you're a fan of queer sex comedies, don't get too excited—ultimately, <em>Humpday</em> plays it safe. When Ben and Andrew try to film their porn, they're able to be somewhat physical together, like kissing and hugging while shirtless, but they don't have sex. And that's okay. It didn't feel like a cop-out ending, because it felt like the decision that these two, well-developed characters would make. Ultimately, it was probably the right decision for them. (In discussing this post with friends, several reminded me of <em>Y Tu Mamá También</em>, a great film which also sensitively and directly addresses this topic. Needless to say, I am glad <em>Humpday</em> ended less awkwardly.)</p>
<p>What I like about <em>Humpday</em>, that I wish more bromances attempted, is that the characters explore the idea of bisexuality at all. At one point, Ben tells Andrew about a time in his life when, out of loneliness, he found himself attracted to a male video store clerk and envisioned kissing him in a way that felt good. Though he still identifies as straight, Ben acknowledges that a small part of him has felt bisexual attraction, and that such feelings could resurface if he sleeps with Andrew. <em>Humpday</em> stops short of explicitly identifying Ben and Andrew as bisexual, while still allowing them space to question whether they might be.</p>
<p><a href="/post/visibility-cynthia-nixon-and-the-politics-of-labels-bisexuality-feminism" target="_blank">As we know from Cynthia Nixon</a> and others, just because someone identifies as straight or gay doesn't mean that their attractions are always 100% limited to a single gender. Human sexuality is far more complicated than that. Though I wish more mainstream films, like Apatow's bromances, would address this complexity, I'm glad that we have movies like <em>Humpday</em> that make the effort. <em>Humpday</em> reminds us that non-monosexual attraction is not limited to self-identified bisexuals, and perhaps if we were more willing to recognize this truth, the idea of bisexuality would be far less intimidating.</p>
<p><strong>Related:</strong> <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/jul/15/bromance-gay-film-humpday-bruno" target="_blank">It's all about bromance</a></p>
<p><strong>Previously: </strong><a href="/post/visibility-glee%E2%80%99s-problem-with-bisexual-men-television-feminism" target="_blank">Glee's Problem With Bisexual Men</a>, <a href="/post/visibility-america%E2%80%99s-next-top-bi-icon-introducing-laura-lafrate" target="_blank">America's Next Top Bi Icon: Introducing Laura LaFrate</a></p>
http://bitchmagazine.org/post/visibility-humpday-not-your-average-bromance#commentsbisexualbisexual visibilitybisexualitybromancebromancesHumpdaymale friendshipsexual fluiditySuperbadVisi(bi)litySex and SexualityWed, 21 Mar 2012 18:54:00 +0000Carrie Nelson15923 at http://bitchmagazine.orgVisi(bi)lity: Cynthia Nixon and the Politics of Labelshttp://bitchmagazine.org/post/visibility-cynthia-nixon-and-the-politics-of-labels-bisexuality-feminism
<p>As I've read through the comments on my first two posts (thank you for those, by the way!), I've noticed an interesting trend that relates to what I want to talk about today: A lot of folks seem to have mixed feelings about the word "bisexual." Some are uncomfortable using it because of the way others react to hearing it; some prefer other words to describe non-monosexual attraction, such as pansexual, queer, or fluid. I understand the reasons why "bisexual" doesn't work for everyone (for a long time, it didn't work for me, either), and I'm not interested in dictating language choice or policing identities. Labels are personal, and different people react to words differently. However, I am interested in exploring the reasons why people choose the labels they do and, similarly, the reasons why many people resist the label of "bisexual."</p>
<p>Which brings me to Cynthia Nixon.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/22/magazine/cynthia-nixon-wit.html?pagewanted=all" target="_blank">In an interview with the <em>New York Times</em> back in January</a>, actress Cynthia Nixon boldly explained that for her, being gay "is a choice. I understand that for many people it's not, but for me it's a choice, and you don't get to define my gayness for me." Many were uncomfortable with her assertion that one's sexual orientation can be chosen, so two days later, <a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/01/24/cynthia-nixon-discusses-her-role-in-wit-her-cancer-bisexuality-and-her-kids.html" target="_blank">she clarified her statement in an interview with The Daily Beast</a>:</p>
<blockquote><p>I don't pull out the 'bisexual' word because nobody likes the bisexuals. Everybody likes to dump on the bisexuals. ...I just don't like to pull out that word. But I do completely feel that when I was in relationships with men, I was in love and in lust with those men. And then I met Christine and I fell in love and lust with her. I am completely the same person and I was not walking around in some kind of fog. I just responded to the people in front of me the way I truly felt.</p></blockquote>
<p>But even that explanation was not enough for a large portion of the LGBT community, who seemed to prefer that she just call herself "bisexual" already. A week after that interview, <a href="http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2012/01/30/Cynthia_Nixon_Being_Bisexual_Is_Not_a_Choice/" target="_blank">she made the following statement to The Advocate</a>:</p>
<blockquote><p>... to the extent that anyone wishes to interpret my words in a strictly legal context I would like to clarify: While I don't often use the word, the technically precise term for my orientation is bisexual. I believe bisexuality is not a choice, it is a fact. What I have 'chosen' is to be in a gay relationship.</p></blockquote>
<p>Finally, this seemed to be a satisfactory response, and the dialogue surrounding Nixon and her comments quieted down. But I'm bringing it up again now, because I believe that much of the coverage surrounding her remarks missed the point.</p>
<p>I am thrilled that Cynthia Nixon is speaking honestly and openly about her choice. The distinction she makes between orientation and identity is an important one, and it's not one talked about often enough. Furthermore, the mainstream LGBT movement's reliance on essentialism has always troubled me. It is as if people believe that queer rights would be less important if sexual identities were chosen. Our focus should be on equal rights, acceptance and respect for all people, regardless of one's sexuality and regardless of whether one's sexuality is innate, chosen, or a combination of both. So I completely support Nixon's gay identity and her statements about it.</p>
<p>However, I am troubled by her statement that "nobody likes the bisexuals." I do not want to label Nixon as "bisexual" if it's a label that doesn't feel true or accurate to her. But that particular statement—"nobody likes the bisexuals"—makes me wonder if bisexual is a label to which she feels some connection, but due to stereotypes and prejudices, she feels uncomfortable using it. If someone rejects a label because they feel pressured not to use it, how much of a choice is it really?</p>
<p>The reasons why Nixon identifies as gay are much less interesting to me than the reasons why she does not identify as bi. I completely understand and support her reasons for identifying as gay, and I think it is radical and exciting for her to challenge the "born this way" status quo. But her reasons for choosing gay over bi seem to be about the negative connotations associated with the word "bisexual." I can't know that for sure, as I don't know her personally, but by saying "I don't pull out the 'bisexual' word because nobody likes the bisexuals," it seems that is what she is implying. And that concerns me.</p>
<p>People should always be free to choose words and labels that fit their experiences and identities. But we need to be aware of the reasons why certain labels are preferred over others. Not every non-monosexual person should feel compelled to identify as bisexual. But in order to make this world a more accepting place for bi people, we have to combat the negative messaging. And the first step towards doing that? Being visible.</p>
<p><strong>Related:</strong> <a href="http://thoughtcatalog.com/2012/my-love-my-choice%C2%A0on-cynthia-nixon-and-why-gay-is-sometimes-better/" target="_blank">My Love, My Choice: On Cynthia Nixon And Why Gay Is (Sometimes) Better</a>, <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tracy-baim/cynthia-nixon-choice_b_1224241.html" target="_blank">In Defense of Cynthia Nixon: Why 'Born This Way' Doesn't Matter </a></p>
<p><strong>Previously:</strong> <a href="/post/visibility-ibi-the-wayi-and-the-realities-of-bisexuality-feminist-film-review" target="_blank">Bi the Way and the Realities of Bisexuality</a>, <a href="/post/visibility-deconstructing-images-of-bisexuality-in-the-media-feminism-sexuality" target="_blank">Deconstructing Images of Bisexuality in the Media</a></p>
http://bitchmagazine.org/post/visibility-cynthia-nixon-and-the-politics-of-labels-bisexuality-feminism#commentsbisexualbisexual visibilitybisexualityCynthia Nixonidentity politicslabelspansexualityqueersexual fluidityVisi(bi)litySex and SexualityThu, 08 Mar 2012 22:50:27 +0000Carrie Nelson15671 at http://bitchmagazine.orgSexual Fluidity Is So Hot Right Nowhttp://bitchmagazine.org/post/sexual-fluidity-is-so-hot-right-now
<p><img src="/sites/default/files/lesbian_poster.jpg" width="297" height="450" alt="lesbian_poster.jpg" /></p>
<p>Along with hot pink and oversize handbags, women's magazines are pushing a new trend this season: lesbianism. At least, that is the impression given by <a href="http://www.oprah.com/article/omagazine/200904-omag-women-leaving-men/1" rel="nofollow">this article</a> in this month's <i>O</i> Magazine (featured also today on <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/personal/04/23/o.women.leave.menfor.women/" rel="nofollow">CNN.com</a>). </p>
<p>The article, entitled "Why Women Are Leaving Men For Other Women," deals with well, exactly what it sounds like it would deal with. While it's a great thing that a mainstream magazine like <i>O</i> is apparently making an effort to normalize same-sex relationships, it's hard not to feel a little weird about the way the author (Mary A. Fischer) treats lesbianism and sexual fluidity as a fun, sexy, new trend that is all the rage this season. (What's next? Flashy new mood rings that change color based on your gender identity?) </p>
<p>To be fair, the <i>O</i> article does seem to have its heart in the right place. It features several different same-sex couples (complete with precious photos) and interviews them about how they got together. Of course, all of the couples include at least one woman who formerly identified as heterosexual (and may still), and these women explain why it was that they chose to start batting for the other team, so to speak. For the most part, their reasoning stems from emotional fulfillment, and the fact that they weren't getting it from their male partners. Could it be that the hypermasculinization of American males is rendering them unfit for heterosexual relationships? Has our culture become so gendered that our only chance at happiness lies in homosexuality?</p>
<p>These and many other questions arise when confronted with a so-called "phenomenon" like women leaving men to be with women, and the problem with the article is that it doesn't really ask them. For example, Fischer treats this as a new happening among women in the US, and doesn't touch on the fact that it is most likely that the <i>desire</i> among women to have homosexual relationships hasn't changed, the culture has. Being in a same-sex relationship is slightly less taboo now (for some people, in some areas of the country), so more people are doing it. It's not as though women who had never given a thought to homosexuality are suddenly changing their minds because Cynthia Nixon has a girlfriend, or because Katy Perry sang a song about kissing a girl. Why the shift in cultural acceptance? </p>
<p>A better question to ask might be, Has there even been a shift in cultural acceptance? Of the <a href="http://www.oprah.com/article/omagazine/200904-omag-women-leaving-men/1" rel="nofollow">24 comments</a> left on the <i>O</i> website, many of them are hateful. Says memymine, "It's perversion to what God intended and I feel sorry for the children." Rossjw adds, "Ok Oprah, as a black man I am disgusted by this story. Our community is failing and fallen behind because of I don't need a man mentallity that you foster." Sure, television shows cited in the article like <i>The L Word</i> and <i>Work Out</i> put lesbians into the mainstream, but it doesn't sound like everyone is quite as psyched about it as Oprah.</p>
<p>To be fair, media exposure that normalizes homosexuality/bisexuality/polysexuality seems like a good thing, especially in the wake of Prop 8 and other such nonsense. Trivializing sexuality and suggesting that it is changing because of Lindsay Lohan's foray into the LGBTQA community, however, seems a bit silly. (This is not to say that this mass media coverage is a bad thing, just that it is not responsible for a perceived nationwide shift in female sexuality.)</p>
<p>The article does at least point out that we know very little about female sexuality as compared to male sexuality from a scientific standpoint, and that many of the commonly held beliefs surrounding sexual orientation stem from scientific research conducted on exclusively male subjects. The studies that have been done more recently on women's sexual responses do show evidence of what <i>O</i> is coining, "sexual fluidity." (They cite the <a href="http://www.northwestern.edu/univ-relations/media_relations/releases/2003_06/bailey.html" rel="nofollow">2003 Northwestern study</a> on this, among others.) Because of this fluidity, some women feel quite comfortable dating partners of more than one gender, without giving it much of a second thought.</p>
<p>More than shine a light on a new "fashionable" sexuality, Fischer's piece shines a light on all of the problems we as a society are still struggling with when it comes to gender and sexuality issues. If we could back off a little bit from the gender norms and rigid classifications, it might not be such an issue that <a href="http://www.oprah.com/article/omagazine/200904-omag-women-leaving-men/6" rel="nofollow">an 8-year old girl has a genderqueer stepparent</a> (something touched upon in the article). If we didn't encourage men to be emotionally distant (and straight), we might see more of this sexual fluidity in men as well. And if we didn't insist upon everyone identifying as either a man or a woman to begin with (and saddling themselves with whatever that implies culturally), we might be able to get past all of this weird "trendiness" rhetoric and just see these same-sex couples as what they are: couples. </p>
<p>What do you think?</p>
http://bitchmagazine.org/post/sexual-fluidity-is-so-hot-right-now#commentsbisexualityCNNCynthia Nixongendergender roleshomosexualityLesbianismLindsay LohanMary A. FischerO MagazineOprahsexual fluidityThe L WordWork OutDigiBitchThu, 23 Apr 2009 20:08:33 +0000Kelsey Wallace1484 at http://bitchmagazine.org